Of Nameology

 

I

have come to the conclusion

that naming can be a form of child abuse.

 

I didn’t always think this way; as a child I might have longed for an exotic and pretty appellation like Dulcibella or Zena, but as a semi-grown person with more maturely formed aesthetic sensibilities I am grateful for my parent’s taste and discretion. But while working at a medical clinic, I learned that this concept of the fitness of names is not shared by the world at large.

 

“Marijuana”, as a name for child, is neither meet nor just. The individual syllables might sound adequate, but the meaning alone negates it’s appellatory value for a human. Can you imagine what she went through in school? “Marijuana will now present her show and tell piece on the dangers of smoking.” “Marijuana lit up the stage at the high school play . . .”

 

Yet I have not only met a woman with the afore mentioned moniker, but I know of several people whose parent’s search for individuality saddled them with an undeniable Uniqueness.

Yep, Unique as a first name.

And there were at least three of them in our database. Ooh, and there was one daft brilliant variation in spelling it “Eunique”. I kept longing for the day when we would have two or more of them in the Waiting Room; “Unique? The doctor will see you now. Oh, not you, Unique, the other Unique.” What does this name say about these unfortunate inimitable people? How can you live up to a name like that?

 

There should be a rule book on “How to Name a Human”.

Rule #1: Royal Titles are Not Names

“Sir Boston” is not acceptable as a full, legal designation. I am sorry. How do you address the kid when he needs to be disciplined? “Sir, we regret to inform you that it is time to keep your appointment in the dungeon”.  Neither is “Princess” recommended as anything other than a nickname. That is just forcing the poor girl into a revolution. Vive le Fraternite! Which lead us to  . . .

 

Rule #2: Consider the Combination of First and Last Names.

Somewhere out there is person forever labeled as “Princess E. Boles”. There is a “Princess White,” a “Snow White,”  and an “Ivory White”. All right, so these parents obviously considered the combination. However, I maintain that they could have deliberated with more cognition.

 

Rule #3: Bear in mind that this is a PERSON who will answer to this title for the at least the first 18 years of life.

There once were parents who want to name their baby “4Real“. For serious. The government stepped in to stop this outrage, (which raises some interesting questions,) and the kid was  then given the legal label “Superman”. True story. Apparently children are the latest canvas for self-expression.

 

In conclusion, I suggest that there are some beautiful old names – that have real meanings – and are almost as unique as Unique’s name. Like Cliodhna, Siobhan, and Toirdhealbhach.

Use them.

Please? The children of the world will  thank you.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Of Nameology

  1. A very unique reflection on the inconsistencies of society. The question of where tastelessness and vulgarity meet (to make tastefulness)has an interesting insight into the norms of propriety that bears further consideration.
    The sarcasm was most fitting though.

  2. Pingback: A Very Merry Unbirthday « Egotist's Club

  3. Pingback: Mel’s Meme: Ye Olde Monikers « Egotist's Club

  4. Pingback: The Egotist’s Club Turns Three! | Egotist's Club

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s